Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Cross-sectional survey reveals moderate concern regarding GLP-1 drug misuse among sports medicine physicians, highlighting the need for athlete education and targeted monitoring.
Background and Objective Anecdotal evidence suggests glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) drugs, typically prescribed to manage diabetes mellitus and assist weight loss, are being misused in elite sport. The objective of this study was to investigate sports medicine physicians’ perceptions of GLP-1 drug use in sport. Methods Following an observational cross-sectional approach, 114 sports medicine physicians completed a survey addressing experiences and perceptions of GLP-1 use in competitive sport. Participants had worked in sports medicine for 16.6 years on average, 63% were male, and 38 countries and 93 sports were represented. Survey data were analysed using descriptive statistics. Results Twelve percent of physicians were aware of athletes who had used GLP-1 drugs without medical need. Physicians most frequently reported that athletes would consider using GLP-1 drugs to meet weight limits and assist weight loss after injury and would be deterred by a lack of energy to train from a reduced appetite. On average, physicians were moderately concerned about the non-prescription use of GLP-1 drugs in sport from a performance enhancement perspective and from an athlete health and welfare perspective. Forty-four percent of participants believed GLP-1 drugs should be prohibited, although 38% reported being unsure. For those supporting prohibition, harm to an athlete’s health was the main concern. Conclusions Currently, without evidence on the effects of GLP-1 drugs on athletes’ health and performance, a proportionate response for sport is education first, structured therapeutic-use pathways, enhanced monitoring, and accelerated sport-specific research including longer-term clinical follow-up of side effects. The approach protects health and fairness, while creating the evidence base needed to judge whether prohibition is justified.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Read et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: